Obama Calls For Mandatory Government Service

I haven't seen this article before, so I thought I'd share it with you all. After reading it, all I can say is I hope you all like the idea of
forced labor. Obama is making it a central cause in his presidency. No free rides for anyone.. So much for the 13th amendment and that bit about
forced servitude.

“Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.” Those are the words of Barack Obama on the
campaign trail just two days before Americans celebrated their independence. While he emphasized that loving your country means more than simply
watching fireworks on the 4th of July, he went one step further and announced it was also our responsibility to change the country we love as well.
This one word ‘change’, has been the cornerstone of Obama’s campaign since the primary season began, but what exactly would Obama like to
change? It appears that as Americans prepared to celebrate their independence, Obama was looking for a way to strip some of that independence,
effectively making young Americans indentured servants to our government.

Obama, an Illinois senator, touted a package of proposals he first offered in December that would expand AmeriCorps, the domestic service agency, and
double the size of the Peace Corps.

He also would offer more service opportunities to retirees and set goals for middle- and high-school students to serve 50 hours a year of public
service, and for college students to serve 100 hours a year.

Barack Obama is going down a slippery slope with his message of ‘change’ as he is beginning to reveal what it is he believes needs to be changed.
Individualism and self reliance will no longer exist under an Obama Presidency, as young Americans will be taught that it is their duty to help
others, and it is the duty of others to help them. It will be the duty of all young Americans to serve their fellow citizens, wether they want to or
not.

Obama supporters have an inherent belief that it is George Bush who is a fascist, but it is clearly Obama who has read Mussolini’s The Doctrine of
Fascism which says “Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only
insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State,”

Obama’s call for mandatory government service is a statist approach, believing that government is the answer to all of life’s problems, and only
through government service can we ‘change’ America into the country Obama believes it should be. Presumably Obama would ignore the text of the
Thirteenth Amendment in order to accomplish this goal, as the Constitution strictly forbids ‘involuntary servitude’, which includes “threatened
or actual state-imposed legal coercion” as defined by the Supreme Court.

Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for
100 hours of public service a year.

YIKES!

Sure, he tries to sugarcoat it with that tax credit crap, but its still mandatory, any way you slice it. And how many college kids actually make
enough money to take anything close to full advantage of this? Very few. I'd guess that the 50 hours for school kids will also be mandatory,
although that's not stated on the website.

Granted, I think it would actually be GOOD for a lot of kids. However...we're a nation built upon the principle of freedom. Forced
servitude to the government is not freedom.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
Many countries require mandatory service, but hopefully we won't be joining them anytime soon! It sounds like he wants to put the whole country on a
gigantic Welfare to Work program.

Every other country in the world could require its citizens to have the left pinky finger chopped off and that would signify absolutely nothing for
the USA under the terms of its own Constitution.

My point is he wants something that is not Constitutional (in the U.S. sense), and it cannot be found in powers given to Congress or any other branch
of government.

No matter how much a President wants something, he should never get it if it is not in the U.S. Constitution as amended.

I guess it boils down to how fast and how much we want to lose our individual rights. With Obama, a heavy Marxist, it will be at full pace and with a
full-court press.

It is why Maxism never works and always results in a dictatorship. It's too easy to consolidate power by monopolizing government rights and factions
over the masses, while taking individualism away from the people.

I'm more conservative, but my liberal friends are ashamed and no longer supporting Obama. He is even too liberal for them I guess.

Originally posted by jetxnet
are ashamed and no longer supporting Obama.

Therein lies the conundrum. Obama is turning folks off to him, because he is starting to show his true colors, yet McCain is, well, like I said,
he'll be the same road as Bush; especially considering he's already said he's willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years. Not to mention, he seems
to have no clue what is going on in the country. I honesly think he is in the first stages of Alzheimers.

What do we do? I saw a commercial for a movie in which Costner, an average Joe, becomes pres? Maybe that's the ticket out of this, heh.

Yeah, we'll be in Iraq regardless though for a long time. The NWO wants this as to secure the region from China and Russia.

It may be why Obama shifted his stance on Iraq .. the powers that be told he shouldn't be preaching an early pull-out.

Besides, if we left anyway, Iran would just take it over and make it a radical Islamic theocracy like their government.

What do you do? Not much can be done as the voting system likely rigged anyway for the NWO pick.

Money buys everything and almost everyone.

The only to take NWO down is through their investment banks.

Us Computer gurus should be having moles at IT admin levels at those banks, so the whole system can be taken down in minutes. Without their computers
managing all those accounts, they'd be very desparate.

Much like everything else the Liberal Socialist's do, this will be explained away, or re-defined so that it sits with the palate better; yet it is
pure Socialism at it's best.

No matter how much the Socialists pay you for forcing you to work, they are still forcing you to work. Typical Liberal Sugar Coating Tactics.

Does this sound familiar today?

In the Soviet Union, state ownership of productive property was combined with central planning. Down to the workplace level, Soviet economic
planners decided what goods and services were to be produced, how they were to be produced, in what quantities, and at what prices they were to be
sold (see economy of the Soviet Union). Soviet economic planning was promoted as an alternative to allowing prices and production to be determined by
the market through supply and demand. Especially during the Great Depression, many socialists considered Soviet-style planning a remedy to what they
saw as the inherent flaws of capitalism, such as monopolies, business cycles, unemployment, vast inequalities in the distribution of wealth, and the
exploitation of workers.

Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use
the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of
legalized theft.

The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another's wealth but also
the desire to see another's wealth lowered to the level of one's own

Whats amazing is that even though you guys read his web site you all are still demonstrating massively poor reading aptitude.

nothing is mandatory and it's actually a damned good idea.

kids should put down their text messaging phones, trendy fads, and their wii's for maybe a few hours a week. get outside and get a real
understanding of the world. he's trying to get the US to move towards being more concious of their surroundings and reverse their narcissistic me
first entitlement attitudes. he's just trying to get the sleeping dysfunctional US public to reverse it's downward spiral. yeah we are pretty
dysfunctional as a nation and as a country right now. and any psychologist could point out the rampant pathology of the general american public.

all of this marxist crap is complete paranoid thinking and really poorly thought out. you guys are sure putting words into his mouth and are
misreading and misinterpreting everything he says.

While I have read some interesting replies in defense and rebuttal of this thread, I have a hopefully unique twist and perspective on it.

Take out the word mandatory. Forget the 13th amendement and forced labor for a minute.

Now imagine our world today:

Greed
Self-Loathing
Envy
Hatred
Bigotry
Racism

All of these things are day to day life for so many of us that the world we live in is not the milk and cookies tv show we think it is. Dreams of
american inginuity and resourcefulness are being crushed by the weight of our own petty differences.

Community service by definition is:
1. Services volunteered by individuals or an organization to benefit a community or its institutions.
2. Similar work performed by law offenders to serve a sentence in lieu of or in addition to jail time.

With all of the hatred that is abundant in this world, how can helping others hurt? I too see that his so called "mandatory" service is being
compensated. This to mee looks like a job. An easy one with a bigger payoff than monetary gain.

Our fellow man needs our help, whether here or abroad. I am not an Obama supporter, hell, I have a thread discussing his possibility of being the
antichrist.

My love or dislike for the man is apparent, however it is not ill-motivated. I am not counting him out for an elected president, but I am not going to
be happy about him voted in either. Our political process is so difficult now days that finding the person who will lead our country to greatness once
again is almost impossible. I find it troubling to think than any candidate could just walk in and make everything better. This would be the biggest
red flag of all. Do I want it to come at sacrificing our constitution, no.

However the main question remains: How do we as a people, not a nation refuse to this day to help others on such a scale that it turns the rest of the
world against us?

I don't want to derail the thread, so I will keep my opinion as short as possible, but in the end, mandatory service is wrong, but if what he is
proposing is a voluntary-paid service, then how can you not take advantage of it to better our own lives and grow spiritually?

I for one hope that if he is elected his speaches of change might amount to something. After all, our country was founded on hope of a better life,
and the blood, sweat and tears that our forefathers paid to make it happen for us.

While all that you are saying is true in that "WE" should be teaching our kids these qualities; it is ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS
BUSINESS...

It is also just a start of more completely terrible and disastrous things to come should this man get elected.

Baby steps toward the perfect Socialist State and the destruction of our way of life.

I forget who exactly said it and of course I can't find the reference, but it goes something like this...

Democracy can not work because the people will eventually figure out that they can vote people into office that will "take care" of them and give
them what they want from the government coffers with little or no effort of their own. This leads to the government being forced to "make" people
work to ensure there is enough money to "take care" of the people that voted them in and then eventually into dictatorship.

It is sad that I have lived long enough to see this happen to my country.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Well this is not surprising. He is a Socialist after all.

Much like everything else the Liberal Socialist's do, this will be explained away, or re-defined so that it sits with the palate better; yet it is
pure Socialism at it's best.

Actually no he isn't...

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production".
Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation,
education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their
lives.

Russia is the worst example to use, the socialist revolution failed and Russia never became socialist, it was a dictatorship. Maybe socialism for the
rich, but it wasn't socialism for the poor. Socialism failed because as per usual they still had the ruling classes dictating policy, and the
government owned the means of production.
In other words the Russians were exploited by the ruling classes just like in the good 'ole USA. Not Socialism.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.